Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
www.emeraldinsight.com/2443-4175.htm
Audit
The effect of company report lag
characteristics and auditor
characteristics to audit report lag
Muhammad Rifqi Abdillah, Agus Widodo Mardijuwono and 129
Habiburrochman Habiburrochman Received 24 May 2019
Department of Accounting, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Revised 8 June 2019
Accepted 15 June 2019
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyze the factors that affect an auditor’s efficiency
in completing the audit process proxied by audit report lag. The factors used in this study are selected by
looking at the characteristics of the company and the characteristics of an auditor.
Design/methodology/approach – Company characteristics were proxied by the audit committee
effectiveness, financial condition, accounting complexity and profitability, whereas auditor characteristics
were proxied with auditor reputation, audit tenure and auditors industry specialization. Populations of this
study were all manufacturing companies listed in Indonesian Stock Exchange in 2014–2016. Based on the
purposive sampling method, the number of samples obtained from 231 companies was 77. Multiple linear
regression method was used to analyze this study. Hypothesis testing was done by statistical t-test (partial).
Findings – The results showed that partially variables of the audit committee effectiveness and profitability
had a significant negative effect on audit report lag while the variable financial condition had a significant
positive effect on audit report lag. Meanwhile, variables of the accounting complexity, auditor reputation,
audit tenure and auditors’ industry specialization did not show significant influence on audit report lag.
Originality/value – This study tests both company’s and auditor’s characteristic on audit report lag that as
far as authors know never been tested simultaneously.
Keywords Audit committee effectiveness, Accounting complexity, Auditors characteristics,
Financial condition, Firms characteristics
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Shareholders are entitled to obtain information on the financial condition and results of the
company’s operations. The information is used by the shareholders to evaluate the
performance of the management and make a decision on whether the company is providing
benefits or not to them. Therefore, the financial statements are a form of management
accountability for the management of the entity’s resources entrusted to it. In addition, the
financial statements are also a means of communication of the management to shareholders.
In order for the financial statements to be valuable to the user at the time of decision
making, the financial statements should contain qualitative characteristics that are
characteristic of financial statement information. The qualitative characteristics of financial
statements based on the Basic Framework of Preparation and Presentation of Financial
Statements of Financial Accounting Standards are understandable, relevant, reliable and
comparable. Relevant qualitative and reliable qualitative characteristics are the primary
quality characteristics of a financial report. The financial statements are said to contain
2. Literature review
Agency theory provides an explanation of the agency relationship; it is the relationship
between the owners of the company or shareholders as a principal with the management
company as an agent. In the agency relationship, there is a contract between one or more
persons domiciled with another person who is an agent to perform a work in accordance
with the principal’s interests, accompanied by the delegation of decision-making
authority to the agent ( Jensen and Meckling, 1976). This agency theory is motivated by
the existence of principals or shareholders who are not possible to carry out all the
functions required in the management of a company due to the limited ability, time, etc.,
so that the principal appoints the agent of company management to replace the task of
managing the company’s activities (Sudana, 2011). The existence of a conflict of interest
between the agent and the principal can lead to the asymmetry of information that is the
imbalance of information owned by both parties where the agent has more information
than the principal about the company. This is because management as a party has more
AJAR detailed information about the company to hold or not provide perfect information to the
4,1 shareholders because it is more profitable for management.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Operational definitions
3.1.1 Audit report lag. Audit report lag is the length of days required by the auditor to
132 complete the audit process of the company’s financial statements after the closing date of
the company’s books (Carslaw and Kaplan, 1991; Bamber et al., 1993). The lag report audit is
measured by counting the number of days after the closing date of the company’s book
( January 1) up to the date of signing of the independent auditor’s report (LAI) by the auditor
stated in the company’s audited financial statements.
3.1.2 The effectiveness of the audit committee. The effectiveness of the audit committee is
an audit committee that qualifies members with the authority and resources to protect the
interests of stakeholders by ensuring the reliability of financial reporting, internal control
and risk management, as well as through diligent monitoring. This variable is measured by
summing the scores of the committee effectiveness index built by DeZoort et al. (2002). The
index consists of four elements, namely, composition, authority, resources and persistence,
which are then divided into ten requirements. Higher scores indicate that audit committees
are more effective. The measurement of the effectiveness of variables of the audit committee
are described in Table I.
3.1.3 Financial condition. The probability of bankruptcy is used as a proxy in assessing
a company’s financial condition as measured using the Zmijewski Model (Habib and
Bhuiyan, 2011). The Zmijewski Model is based on several financial ratios: return on assets
(ROA) (net income/total assets), financial leverage (total debt/total assets) and liquidity
(current assets/current debt). The formula of Zmijewski Model is as follows:
ZFC ¼ 4:336–4:513ðROAÞþ5:679ðFINLÞþ0:004ðLIQÞ:
From the above formula, the auditor is said to have an industry specialization if the SPEC
amount is equal to or greater than 30 percent, according to Reichelt and Wang (2009) research.
4. Results
4.1 Description of research variables
(Table II).
4.2 Classical assumption testing Audit
4.2.1 Normality test. Based on Figure 1, it appears that the data spread around the diagonal report lag
line and follow the direction of the diagonal line. Thus, it can be concluded that the P-P plot
graph shows the data are normally distributed.
4.2.2 Multicollinearity test. Based on Table III it is known that all independent variables
(effectiveness of the audit committee (ACEFEC), bankruptcy probability (ZFC), accounting
complexity (SUBS), profitability (ROA), auditor reputation (REP), tenure audit (TEN) and 135
industry) have a tolerance value W0.1 and VIFo10. It can be concluded that all independent
variables in the regression model tested in this study did not occur multicollinearity.
4.2.3 Heteroscedasticity test. The scatterplot diagram in Figure 2 shows that spreading
dots do not accumulate and do not form a distinctive pattern. Thus, it can be concluded that
the results of this test state that the regression model is free from symptoms of
heteroskedastisitas or homoskedastisitas occur.
4.2.4 Autocorrelation test. Based on the Durbin–Watson test presented in Table IV, the
regression for Equation (1) shows the value of 1.687, which means that the Durbin–Watson
value is still in the range of autocorrelation-free regions as they are between −2 to +2.
0.8
Expected Cum Prob.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob. Figure 1.
Normality test chart
Source: Processed results of SPSS data
AJAR Collinearity statistics
4,1 Model 1 Tolerance VIF Information
(Constant)
ACEFEC 0.881 1.135 Free multicollinearity
ZFC 0.799 1.251 Free multicollinearity
SUBS 0.933 1.072 Free multicollinearity
136 ROA 0.621 1.610 Free multicollinearity
REP 0.390 2.564 Free multicollinearity
TEN 0.985 1.015 Free multicollinearity
ASI 0.456 2.191 Free multicollinearity
Table III. Note: aDependent variable: ARL
Multicollinearity Source: Processed results of SPSS data
Scatterplot
Dependent variable: ARL
Regression Studentized Residual
–2
–4 –2 0 2 4
Figure 2. Regression Standardized Predicted Value
Heteroscedasticity test
Source: Processed results of SPSS data
Model summaryb
Model Durbin–Watson
4.3 t-Test
(Table V ).
4.4 F-test
From Table VI it is concluded that the estimated linear regression model is feasible to be
used to explain the effect of all independent variables on dependent variable.
Coefficientsa
Audit
Regression model report lag
Model 1 Coefficient t Sig. Conclusions
ANOVAa
Model 1 Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
5. Discussion
5.1 The effect of the effectiveness of the audit committee on audit report lag
The audit committee is part of the corporate governance component of the company proven
to reduce audit report lag. There are several reasons that are suspected to underlie this.
First, the audit committee can perform the task of overseeing the financial reporting process
effectively. The audit committee can encourage the management of the company to be able
to deliver the financial statements in a timely manner. Second, the audit committee has an
important role in the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls so that the more
effective the audit committee the more effective the internal control of the company.
The effective impact of internal controls is the decrease in substantive testing conducted by
the auditor due to low risk control so that it can reduce audit report lag. Third, the audit
Model summaryb
Model R R2 Adjusted R2 SE of the estimate
a Table VII.
1 0.329 0.108 0.080 15.104 Coefficient
Notes: aPredictors: (constant), ASI, SUBS, TEN, ZFC, ACEFEC, ROA, REP; bdependent variable: ARL determination
Source: Processed output results of SPSS data test results
AJAR committee also has a role to ensure that external audits are running effectively by
4,1 considering several factors, including independence, scope of assignment, cost efficiency
and objectivity of the external auditor.
6. Conclusion
(1) The effectiveness of the audit committee has a significant negative effect on the
audit report lag.
(2) Financial condition has a significant positive effect on the audit report lag.
(3) Accounting complexity does not affect audit report lag.
(4) Profitability has a significant negative effect on audit report lag.
(5) The auditor’s reputation has no effect on audit report lag.
(6) Tenure audit has no effect on audit report lag.
(7) The auditor industry specialization has no effect on audit report lag.
6.1 Suggestions
Based on the results of research that has been done, suggestions for further research are:
(1) The value of R2 in this study is still too low that is equal to 0.108 or indicates that the
variables used in the study are able to explain variations audit report lag by 0.108 or
10.8 percent while the rest 0.892 or 89.2 percent explained by other variables outside
variables used in the study. Therefore, for the next researcher it is suggested to
replace or add another independent variable to get higher R2 value.
(2) It is better for the next researcher to use the sample of the research not only in the
manufacturing company so that the results obtained have a wider scope.
Based on the results of the calculation of the specific auditor only two KAPs are obtained, it
is advisable for further researchers to use different measurement methods if still using this
variable and the same sample with this research in order to show better results.
References
Al-Ajmi, J. (2008), “Audit and reporting delays: evidence from an emerging market”, Advances in
Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 217-226.
Ashton, R.H., Graul, P.R. and Newton, J.D. (1989), “Audit delay and the timeliness of corporate
reporting”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 657-673.
Bamber, E.M., Bamber, L.S. and Schoderbek, M.P. (1993), “Audit structure and other determinants of
audit report lag: an empirical analysis”, Auditing, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 1.
Balsam, S., Krishnan, J. and Yang, J.S. (2003), “Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality”,
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 71-97.
Carslaw, C.A. and Kaplan, S.E. (1991), “An examination of audit delay: further evidence from Audit
New Zealand”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 85, pp. 21-32. report lag
DeZoort, F.T., Hermanson, D.R., Archambeault, D.S. and Reed, S.A. (2002), “Audit committee
effectiveness: a synthesis of the empirical audit committee literature”, Journal of Accounting
Literature, Vol. 21, pp. 38-75.
Dunn, K.A. and Mayhew, B.W. (2004), “Audit firm industry specialization and client disclosure
quality”, Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-58. 141
Ghozali, I. (2009), Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program SPSS, Badan Penerbit Universitas
Diponegoro, Semarang.
Gramling, A.A. and Stone, D.N. (2001), “Audit firm industry expertise: a review and synthesis of the
archival literature”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 20 No. 1.
Gul, F.A., Fung, S.Y.K. and Jaggi, B. (2009), “Earnings quality: some evidence on the role of auditor
tenure and auditors’ industry expertise”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 47 No. 3,
pp. 265-287.
Habib, A. and Bhuiyan, M.B.U. (2011), “Audit firm industry specialization and the audit report lag”,
Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 32-44.
Jaggi, B. and Tsui, J. (1999), “Determinants of audit report lag: further evidence from Hong Kong”,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 305-360.
Johnson, L.E. (1998), “Further evidence on the determinants of local government audit delay”, Journal
of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 375-397.
Maletta, M. and Wright, A. (1996), “Audit evidence planning: an examination of industry error
characteristics”, Auditing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Owhoso, V.E., Messier, W.F. Jr and Lynch, J.G. Jr (2002), “Error detection by industry-specialized teams
during sequential audit review”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 883-900.
Owusu-Ansah, S. (2000), “Timeliness of corporate financial reporting in emerging capital markets:
empirical evidence from the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange”, Accounting and Business Research,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 241-254.
Praditya dan Fitriany (2013), “Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang MempengaruhiKetepatan Waktu
Penyampaian Laporan Keuangan di Indonesia”, Simposium Nasional Akuntansi, Vol. XVI.
Reichelt, K.J. and Wang, D. (2009), “National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise
and effects on audit quality”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 647-686.
Sengupta, P. (2004), “Disclosure timing: determinants of quarterly earnings release dates”, Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 457-482.
Sudana, I. (2011), “Manajemen Keuangan Perusahaan: Teori dan Praktik”.
Further reading
Abdullah, S.-N. (2006), “Board composition, audit committee and timeliness of corporate financial
reports in Malaysia”, Corporate Ownership & Control, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 33-45.
Abidin, S. and Ahmad-Zaluki, N.A. (2012), “Auditor industry specialism and reporting timeliness”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 65, December, pp. 873-878.
Afify, H. (2009), “Determinants of audit report lag: does implementing corporate governance have any
impact? Empirical evidence from Egypt”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 56-86.
Ahmed, K. (2003), “The timeliness of corporate reporting: a comparative study of South Asia”,
Advances in International Accounting, Vol. 16, pp. 17-43.
Akerlof, G.A. (1970), “The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism”,
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 488-500.
AJAR Alkhatib, K. and Marji, Q. (2012), “Audit reports timeliness: empirical evidence from Jordan”,
4,1 Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 62, October, pp. 1342-1349.
Almutairi, A.R., Dunn, K.A. and Skantz, T. (2009), “Auditor tenure, auditor specialization, and
information asymmetry”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 600-623.
Anshori, M. and Iswati, S. (2009), Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya.
Apadore, K. and Noor, M.M. (2013), “Determinants of audit report lag and corporate governance in
142 Malaysia”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 15, p. 151.
Asthon, R.H., John, J.W. and Robert, K.E. (1987), “An empirical analysis of audit delay”, Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 275-292.
Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal Dan Lembaga Keuangan (2011), Penyampaian Laporan Keuangan
berkala Emiten atau Perusahaan Publik Nomor X.K.2, Kementerian Keuangan Republik
Indonesia, Jakarta.
Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal Dan Laporan Keuangan (2012), Penyampaian Laporan Tahunan
Emiten Atau Perusahaan Publik, Kementerian Keuangan Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
Baldacchino, P.J., Grech, L., Farrugia, K. and Tabone, N. (2016), “An analysis of audit report lags in
Maltese companies”, Contemporary Issues in Finance: Current Challenges from Across Europe,
Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 161-182.
Bursa Efek Indonesia. Laporan Keuangan periode (2010–2016), available at: www.idx.co.id
Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, R.H. and McGrath, N.T. (1992), “Audit quality attributes: the perceptions of
audit partners, preparers, and financial statement users”, Auditing, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 1.
Craswell, A.T., Francis, J.R. and Taylor, S.L. (1995), “Auditor brand name reputations and industry
specializations”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 297-322.
Dewi, I.C. and Hadiprajitno, P.B. (2017), “Pengaruh audit Tenure dan Kantor Akuntan Publik (KAP)
Spesialisasi Manufaktur terhadap audit report lag (ARL)”, Diponegoro Journal of Accounting,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 450-461.
Diastiningsih, N.P.J. and Tenaya, G.A.I. (2017), “Spesialisasi Auditor Sebagai Pemoderasi Pengaruh
Audit Tenure dan ukuran KAP Pada audit report lag”, E-Jurnal Akuntansi, pp. 1230-1258.
Dyer, J.C. and McHugh, A.J. (1975), “The timeliness of the Australian annual report”, Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 204-219.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Agency theory: an assessment and review”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74.
Ettredge, M.L., Li, C. and Sun, L. (2006), “The impact of SOX Section 404 internal control quality
assessment on audit delay in the SOX era”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 1-23.
Fadhlan (2015), Pengaruh Audit Risk, Audit Complexity, dan Audit Expertise terhadap Audit Report
Lag (Studi Kasus pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode
Tahun 2011-2013), Universitas Airlangga.
Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C. (1983), “Separation of ownership and control”, The Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 301-325.
Ghozali, I. (2011), Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program IBM SPSS 19, Edisi 5th, Badan
Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
Ghozali, I. and Chariri, A. (2007), Teori Akuntansi, Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
Goh, B.W. (2009), “Audit committees, boards of directors, and remediation of material weaknesses in
internal control”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 549-579.
Gujarati, D. (2003), Basic Econometrics, 4th ed., New York, NY.
Harahap, S.S. (2005), Teori Akuntansi, PT RajaGrafindo Perkasa, Jakarta.
Horngren, C.T. and Harrison, W.T. (2007), “Akuntansi: Edisi Ketujuh Jilid”.
Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia (2014), Standar Akuntansi Keuangan, Salemba Empat, Jakarta.
Institut Akuntan Publik Indonesia (2011), Standar Profesional Akuntan Publik, Salemba Empat, Jakarta. Audit
Jama’an, J.A. (2008), “Pengaruh Mekanisme Corporate Governance dan Kualitas Kantor Akuntan report lag
Publik terhadap Integritas Informasi Laporan Keuangan (Studi pada Perusahaan Publik
Di BEJ)”, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Diponegoro.
Kieso, D.E., Weygandt, J. and Warfield, T.D. (2012), Intermediate Accounting, John Willey and Sons.
Knechel, W.R. and Payne, J.L. (2001), “Additional evidence on audit report lag”, Auditing: A Journal of
Practice & Theory, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 137-146. 143
Krishnan, J. (2005), “Audit committee quality and internal control: an empirical analysis”, The
Accounting Review, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 649-675.
Kross, W. and Schroeder, D.A. (1984), “An empirical investigation of the effect of quarterly earnings
announcement timing on stock returns”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 153-176.
Lee, H.Y., Mande, V. and Son, M. (2008), “A comparison of reporting lags of multinational and domestic
firms”, Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 28-56.
Lee, H.Y., Mande, V. and Son, M. (2009), “Do lengthy auditor tenure and the provision of non‐audit
services by the external auditor reduce audit report lags?”, International Journal of Auditing,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-104.
Li, D. (2007), Auditor Tenure and Accounting Conservatism, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Mayhew, B.W. and Wilkins, M.S. (2003), “Audit firm industry specialization as a differentiation
strategy: evidence from fees charged to firms going public”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 33-52.
Menteri Keuangan (2008), Jasa Akuntan Publik, Kementerian Keuagangan Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
Michael, C.J. and Rohman, A. (2017), “Pengaruh Audit Tenure dan Ukuran KAP terhadap Audit Report
Lag dengan Spesialisasi Industri Auditor Sebagai Variabel Moderasi (Studi Empiris pada
Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia tahun 2013–2015)”,
Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 378-389.
Newton, J.D. and Ashton, R.H. (1989), “The association between audit technology and audit delay”,
Auditing-a Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 8, pp. 22-37.
Ng, P.P. and Tai, B.Y. (1994), “An empirical examination of the determinants of audit delay in
Hong Kong”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
O’Reilly, D.M. and Reisch, J.T. (2002), “Industry specialization by audit firms: what does academic
research tell us?”, Ohio CPA Journal, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 42-42.
Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (2015), Pembentukan dan Pedoman Pelaksanaan Kerja Komite Audit, Otoritas
Jasa Keuangan Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
Pratama Rudyawan, A. and Nyoman Badera, I.D. (2009), “Opini audit going concern: Kajian
berdasarkan model prediksi kebangkrutan, pertumbuhan perusahaan, leverage, dan reputasi
auditor”, Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis, Vol. 4 No. 2.
Puat Nelson, S. and Norwahida Shukeri, S. (2011), “Corporate governance and audit report timeliness:
evidence from Malaysia”, Accounting in Asia, Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 109-127.
Rachmawati, S. (2008), “Pengaruh Faktor Internal dan Eksternal Perusahaan Terhadap Audit Delay
dan Timeliness”, Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Rainsbury, E.A., Bradbury, M. and Cahan, S.F. (2009), “The impact of audit committee quality on
financial reporting quality and audit fees”, Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 20-33.
Rochmah Ika, S. and Mohd Ghazali, N.A. (2012), “Audit committee effectiveness and timeliness of
reporting: Indonesian evidence”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 403-424.
Rusmin, R., Rusmin, R., Evans, J. and Evans, J. (2017), “Audit quality and audit report lag: case of
Indonesian listed companies”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 191-210.
Rustiarini, N.W. (2013), “Pengaruh Karakteristik Auditor, Opini Audit, Audit Tenure, Pergantian
Auditor Pada Audit Delay”, JINAH ( Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Humanika), Vol. 2 No. 2.
AJAR Saleh, R.S. (2004), “Studi Empiris Ketepatan Waktu Pelaporan Keuangan Perusahaan Manufaktur di
4,1 Bursa Efek Jakarta”, Jurnal Bisnis Strategi, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 67-80.
Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signaling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 355-374.
Sudaryanti, N. (2008), Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Ketepatan Waktu Pelaporan Keuangan.
(Skripsi), Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
144 Sultana, N., Singh, H., der Zahn, V. and Mitchell, J.L. (2015), “Audit committee characteristics and audit
report lag”, International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 72-87.
Tuanakotta, T.M. (2015), Audit Kontemporer, Salemba Empat, Jakarta.
Turley, S. and Zaman, M. (2004), “The corporate governance effects of audit committees”, Journal of
Management and Governance, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 305-332.
Utami, W. (2006), “Analisis determinan audit Delay Kajian Empiris di Bursa Efek Jakarta”, Bulletin
Penelitian, Vol. 9.
Wang, J. and Song, L. (2006), “Timeliness of annual reports of Chinese listed companies”, Journal of
Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 241-257.
Watts, R.L. and Zimmerman, J.L. (1983), “Agency problems, auditing, and the theory of the firm: some
evidence”, The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 613-633.
Whittred, G. and Zimmer, I. (1984), “Timeliness of financial reporting and financial distress”,
Accounting Review, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 287-295.
Widyawati, A.A. and Anggraita, V. (2013), “Pengaruh Konvergensi, Kompleksitas Akuntansi, Dan
Probabilitas Kebangkrutan Terhadap Timeliness Dan Manajemen Laba”, Jurnal Akuntansi dan
Auditing Indonesia, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 135-155.
Yediel dan Sutaryo (2014), “Pengaruh Karakteristik Auditor terhadap Audit Delay Laporan Keuangan
Pemerintah Daerah”, Simposium Nasional Akuntansi, Vol. XVI.
Zakkiyah, U.Z. (2014), “Analisis Penggunaan Model Zmijewski (X-Score) dan Altman (Z-Score) untuk
Memprediksi Potensi Kebangkrutan (Studi pada Perusahaan Tekstil dan Garmen yang
Terdaftar di (BEI) Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2009–2012)”, Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis,
Vol. 12 No. 2.
Zhang, Y., Zhou, J. and Zhou, N. (2006), “Audit committee quality, auditor independence, and internal
control weaknesses”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 300-327.
Zmijewski, M.E. (1984), “Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction
models”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 22, pp. 59-82.
Corresponding author
Habiburrochman Habiburrochman can be contacted at: habib@feb.unair.ac.id
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com